At last the league comes forward with a reasonable starting point for negotiations. I still don't think we're going to get an 82-game season, but I am hopeful that we will get more than half a season now.

"If I can be totally honest, it's not a lot of guys you get impressed by. Actually, it's no one else but him. From the bench, to see what move he makes -- you're like, 'I wish I could do that.' Sometimes you sit on the bench and just think, 'wow,' and you look over to the other bench and they sit there and shake their heads, too. He has great, great skills. I'm probably not going to play with another player who has the kind of skills he has." Mikael Samuelsson on Pavel Datsyuk

I'm not sure I understand you not wanting to talk about other leagues that are way more successful than the nhl and the reasons why they are. There are things that other leagues do that the nhl would be smart to adopt and some things that they need to stay clear of. there is nothing wrong with bringing those facts up. I hope that the 10+ yr contracts are a thing of the past.

I'm not sure I understand you not wanting to talk about other leagues that are way more successful than the nhl and the reasons why they are. There are things that other leagues do that the nhl would be smart to adopt and some things that they need to stay clear of. there is nothing wrong with bringing those facts up. I hope that the 10+ yr contracts are a thing of the past.

Other sports are semi-comparable....but when it comes down to it this is a different league, different sport, different problems

Why didn't Uncle Fehr make the first major concession? I guess Uncle Gary cared a little bit more than Fehr. Especially after Fehr was given the last proposal and he chose not to negotiate by saying it wasn't a game of "ping-pong".

Make the first "major concession". See "Lockout #2, in a series of three 9so far)".Why did Uncle Gary enforce the lockout?Why did Uncle Gary "lowball" in the first offer?A lot of people have put their blinders on and focused on "50-50" aspect of the offer and that's a big mistake.I totally agree with the observations made by Mr. MacKenzie and Mr. Dreger on TSN that there is a lot buried in this proposal and that, if they're not careful and make a counter-proposal, the players are going to get screwed... again.As of this moment in time, Uncle Gary has underestimated his bargaining opponent.

The more details I see coming out of the league's proposal yesterday, the more pessimistic I'm getting about a potential deal in the short term. I guess it will depend on how reasonable the league will be in negotiating off that offer and how reasonable the NHLPA will be in their requests.

The more details I see coming out of the league's proposal yesterday, the more pessimistic I'm getting about a potential deal in the short term. I guess it will depend on how reasonable the league will be in negotiating off that offer and how reasonable the NHLPA will be in their requests.

Which specific part do you think would be an issue for players? I do not see anything, which would make the offer unacceptable. Players might ask for contract limit to be longer than 5 years. Maybe a gradual move from 57% to 50%.

All existing NHL contracts which go longer than five years will be subject to new cap calculations, specifically those deals will count against a team's cap regardless of whether the player is still playing or not. My belief here is that this is the NHL's attempt at correcting the so-called "cheat deals" or back-diving deals -- like those of Marian Hossa or Roberto Luongo -- which carry bogus salaries at the end of deals to lower the cap hit.

That would effect Z and Franzen's contract if they don't play out the full length. Their contracts aren't as ridiculous as Luongo's, but they're a stretch.

I'm also surprised by this a bit:

Embracing an idea first proposed by Maple Leafs GM Brian Burke years ago, the league’s offer included the ability to retain salary in trades. Under the expired CBA, teams could not trade or keep parts of a player’s salary in a trade. This new provision would obviously facilitate trades in a cap market that saw deals minimized, especially in the first half of the season.

It seems like being able to bail out of bad contracts like that will help player movement, but also give GM's an out when they grossly overpay players. And I thought that's what we're trying to clamp down on here.

Doesn't sound like the PA is too thrilled with the NHL's offer. Bob McKenzie/TSN has a story up with snippets of Fehr's letter to the PA that breaks down the proposal...

The first official NHLPA reaction to the NHL offer is in -- NHLPA executive director Don Fehr sent a letter to all players and agents last night -- and not unexpectedly the league's proposal wasn't met with great enthusiasm.

In the letter, which breaks down a summary of the NHL offer, Fehr writes the following:

- "Simply put, the owners' new proposal, while not quite as Draconian as their previous proposals, still represents enormous reductions in player salaries and individual contracting rights. As you will see, at the 5 per cent industry growth rate the owners predict, the salary reduction over six years exceeds $1.6 billion. What do the owners offer in return?"

- "The proposal does represent movement from their last negotiating position, but still represents very large, immediate and continuing concessions by players to owners, in salary and benefits (the Players' Share) and in individual player contracting rules."

On some of the specific aspects of the NHL proposal...

Read the whole story for more. Offers some interesting insights into the PA's mindset.

If the 5 year limit goes through, top UFA prices will skyrocket. ~$12M cap hits for Getzlaf/Perry. That would probably drive up the price of 2nd-tier players too. Imagine $6-7M for Flip.

On the other side, prices for UFAs in their 30s could come down to compensate, particularly those coming off down seasons, and prices for the majority of younger players should stay lower for a bit longer. Both factors could be good for the Wings, considering all our promising (but not "star") prospects and typical willingness to rely on aging vets.

Which specific part do you think would be an issue for players? I do not see anything, which would make the offer unacceptable. Players might ask for contract limit to be longer than 5 years. Maybe a gradual move from 57% to 50%.

There are tons of issues, but two big ones:

- players will take a big hit in current salaries. The NHL says they aren't asking for a rollback, but at 50% right away, that's a 12.3% rollback. While current year salaries will remain intact, the function to allow that would be the players taking less money in later years. So, if a player is currently signed to $5M for the next 5 years, they might get their $5M this year, but maybe only $3M in each of the following 4 years.

- from the looks of it, the definition of HRR is still cloudy, the league says it's unchanged, but the PA is not so sure and will look to clarify that.

...It seems like being able to bail out of bad contracts like that will help player movement, but also give GM's an out when they grossly overpay players. And I thought that's what we're trying to clamp down on here.

They're trying to limit circumvention, so as long as someone is eating the cap hit, I'd say it's fine.

I'd assume the cap hit would go with the player, even though the trading team still pays some of the salary. This would allow rich teams to dump bad cap hits, and allow poor teams to reach the floor without actually paying the salaries. Not quite as good as trading cap space or cash, but it does add a tool to help address the revenue disparity. It's probably my favorite part of the owner's proposal (assuming it would work the way I think, and owners would actually use it wisely).